is there an alternative to napier grass? matching genetic ... · pdf fileis there an...

Is There an Alternative to Napier Grass?

Matching Genetic Resources to Meet the

Demands of Smallholder Farmers

Trisha Collins

Pleasantville, Iowa

World Food Prize Foundation

2010 Borlaug Ruan International Intern

International Livestock Research Institute

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Civilization as it is known today could not have evolved, nor can it survive, without

an adequate food supply. –Norman Borlaug

2

Report of World Food Prize Borlaug-Ruan Intern 2010, Trisha Collins

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 3

Is There an Alternative to Napier Grass? Matching Genetic Resources to Meet the

Demands of Smallholder Farmers

Introduction/Project Goal 4

Tropical Grass Productivity and Nutritional Quality 4

Getting to Know the Grasses 5

Gathering Yield Data 6

Nutritional Quality Data 9

Finding What Farmers Need 16

Conclusion: Meeting the Needs of Farmers 21

References 22

Pictures 24

Appendices

Appendix 1 -Compiled Grass Information 26

Appendix 2 -Experimental Protocol 29

Appendix 3 -Leaflets 34

Appendix 4 -Map of Ada’a Liben 43

Appendix 5 -Farmer Interview Questions 44

Appendix 6 -Answers to Questions 45

Appendix 7 -Male vs. Female Compiled Spreadsheet 47

3


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the staff in the Forage Diversity Department and here at ILRI, they all were

so helpful in my experience here and I am grateful for their advice and wisdom. A special thank

you to Gezahegn, Degusew, and Alemshet in the Nutrition Labs who made every day memorable

and helped me learn Amharic each day. I’d also like to thank Esther, my next-door roommate,

for keeping me “sane” through this experience; I’ll never forget the awesome steak and cheese

sandwiches, the shopping, pancakes, football, ice cream, our days out to town, and of course,

coffee. Most importantly, Dr. Jean Hanson, my supervisor for filling my days with knowledge,

laughs, and insight into both science and the culture of Ethiopia. She taught me if you’re doing a

job you enjoy that helps others, you shouldn’t worry about the salary. Her hard work and

devotion to both science and her job serves as an inspiration to me as I continue with my

education in agriculture. It is now time for her to retire, and she will truly be missed by not only

the Forage Diversity Department, but all of the ILRI staff.

4


Is There an Alternative to Napier Grass? Matching Genetic

Resources to Meet the Demands of Smallholder Farmers

Introduction

Pennisetum purpureum, more commonly known as Napier grass, is an important forage due to its

high yields, ease of propagation, and broad ecological adaptation. It originated from central Africa and is

commonly used by many farmers today because of its growth rate, drought tolerance, and most

importantly, its yield. It is highly popular with smallholder farmers, and therefore they devote their

cropland to this tropical grass, and while most raise the grass for their cattle, it is also becoming

common to find farmers selling the herbage on the open market. With an average crude protein

content of 9% and fresh weights close to 40 tons per hectare, it is an easy favorite for many farming

systems in Africa. It serves as a main feed for dairy systems and a survey by Lekasi (2000) in Kenya

reported that farmers commit 21-28% of their land to Napier grass production.

There is a problem currently affecting many smallholder dairy farms throughout Eastern Africa,

two diseases, Napier Stunt and Smut. For this reason, when a disease strikes farmers may lose

everything. There are currently studies going on to find disease-resistant Napier grass accessions;

however, the farmer’s land is suffering poor yields at harvest today. Our objective is to look at

the productivity and nutritional quality of eight different tropical grass species to see if any

compare in yield/nutrition, and could be accessible to farmers where disease is widespread. Our

hypothesis is that none of the grasses will come anywhere close to being an adequate alternative

in yield to Napier grass; there will be some grasses with high nutritional value anf reasonable

yield, but farmers will care mostly about what can make them the most money, whether it be

through nutritional value or the biomass of the grasses.

Tropical Grass Productivity and Nutritional Quality

The yield of tropical grasses is measured by fresh weight and dry weight. In most cases you use

dry weight for calculations involving nutrition for animosity when comparing results from

different environmental conditions and moisture in other regions around the world. The yields of

tropical grasses depend on many factors; most importantly, soil fertility and environmental

conditions. While there may be a grass in Australia that yields 50 DM t/ha, in Kenya that same

grass may yield around 12 DM t/ha. It not only depends on the season grown, but also the soil

type and pH, planting methods, cutting intervals, leaf/stem ratio, spread and bushiness, and

genetics in general. There are also ways to improve yield involving irrigation, fertilization, and

pest control. These systems have not only become popular, but are a vital part of agricultural

systems in many developed countries. For the developing countries, however, these

advancements are out of reach due to high costs and little accessibility by the rural poor.

5


“The amount of energy forage contributes to a ruminant diet is arguably the single most

important factor in predicting animal performance” Hoffman!!!! (1). There are many factors

involving nutritional analysis that help estimate the energy content of grasses, ranging from Total

Digestible Nutrients to Acid Detergent Fiber. The values we considered when analyzing the

nutritional quality of tropical grasses were as follows: Dry Matter (DM), Ash (ASH), Crude

Protein (CP), Acid Detergent Fiber (ADF), lignin (ADL), and Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF).

As stated earlier, Dry Matter is the total weight of the feed without the weight of water and this

value is expressed as a percentage. Ash represents the minerals that are vital for an animal’s

survival and function; the minerals it represents include: calcium, phosphorus, sodium,

magnesium, potassium, sulphur, and chlorine. By finding the total amount of nitrogen present,

we can also find the CP, however if there is a high amount of urea or ammonia present, that can

alter the results because they are a non-protein nitrogen. Next is ADF, which is “the fibrous,

least-digestible portion of roughage. . . consisting of indigestible parts of forages” such as lignin

and cellulose. As ADF values increase, digestible energy levels decrease (Government of Alberta

1). Lastly, the NDF gives an estimate of the fiber measuring the values of cellulose, silica, lignin,

tannins, and cutins. Animals are unable to consume forages with high NDF values.

Getting to Know the Grasses

The first step in my project was to understand more about tropical grasses and forages. Appendix

1 shows the nine tropical grass species I studied in a compiled table with expected yield,

nutritional data, morphology, and environmental conditions they prefer. I also got to see the

grasses in the field to see why some grasses had a much higher yield than others, and it was

clearly visible when visiting the test plots in Zwai. The photos on page 25 show the different

grass species and how they differ.

The grasses that were used in the study were selected by their usage by smallholder farmers in

this region, they were grown in the Zwai test plot, and had high nutritional quality and yields.

Most of the grasses perform well in the area, and were selected because of their performance.

Andropogon gayanus along with Pennisetum purpureum are known to have excellent drought

tolerance, while Brachiaria decumbens, Brachiaria ruziziensis, Chloris gayana, and Setaria

sphacelata perform fairly well. Brachiaria mutica grows best in waterlogged areas, and are

seldom seen in the lowlands in Ethiopia. With an average yield of 10-40 fresh weight t/ha,

Pennisetum purpureum is known for its high yield because while it grows significantly well in

areas with high rainfall, it still produces a reasonable yield during the drier months. The amount

of protein in each grass is also important, but in most cases, it begins to decrease after a certain

age. So while some grasses such as Panicum maximum, Setaria sphacelata, Brachiaria mutica,

and Brachiaria decumbens, may have values up near 20%, it is highly unlikely to achieve those

levels without good soil, water supply, and fertilizer. Some grasses may need fertile soil and/or

good fertilizer to perform well. For example: Brachiaria ruziziensis, Panicum maximum,

Pennisetum purpureum, and Setaria sphacelata all need soil with good drainage and that is

6


fertile, while Andropogon gayanus, Brachiaria brizantha, Brachiaria decumbens, Brachiaria

mutica, and Chloris gayana do well on a different range of soils, some even on the loam and clay

found in the area.

With this data, I was also able to edit the informative leaflet drafts for six of the grasses and

finish them for publishing. These leaflets will be passed out to farmers when they are deciding

which grass seeds to plant, and provide valuable information on the planting process, expected

yield/nutrition, and preferable environmental conditions, so they know which grass is best for

that area. They can also be found attached as Appendix 3.

Gathering Yield Data

I then was introduced to my research project. Recently, Evans Basweti, a post-doctorate and past

employee of ILRI, began a research project to find out whether there were any alternatives to

Pennisetum purpureum or Brachiaria mutica and whether or not the yield of these grasses was

higher after one or two cuttings. He collected the data, and took samples for nutritional analysis

from the experiment. It was my job to analyze and compile the productivity data and then run

nutritional analysis on the different species in the laboratory. As stated earlier, the project goal

was to see whether or not there is an alternative to Napier grass, and in addition, find what

farmers demand and meet their needs. Our hypothesis was that Napier grass would have a

significantly higher yield than any of the others, both after one or two cuts.

The methodology for the productivity analysis is detailed in the Experimental Protocol,

Appendix 2, written by Evans Basweti. From this information, I was able to analyze the data

making charts and diagrams to portray the results. While viewing these charts, you can easily see

if any of the variables compare to the control, Napier grass, in yield.

Chart 1

02000400060008000

100001200014000160001800020000

g/m

2

1st Harvest Average DM Yield Species

7


Chart 2

In Charts 1 and 2 you see the average yields for each accession in the first harvest and the second

harvest. We are comparing the grasses that were cut twice in 16 weeks and seeing how their first

cutting compares to their second cutting. The black bar at the end of each species cluster

represents the species average, and you can clearly see which grass performs the best at each

cutting. This yield data is measured in g/m2 because we were dealing with small plots. For

example let’s say you collect a small amount of a grass sample from the plot in grams, but you

happen to make a small error when recording the weight, and when multiplied up to kilograms or

tons that small error turns in to a big one and can create in significant differences. That is why

for these first two charts, it was simply measured in g/m2 and in the next three it was converted

to kg/m2.

In Charts 3 and 4 we are looking at the yields between the two groups of grasses; the first group

of grasses which were cut twice, both at 8 and 16 weeks, and the second group which was cut

once at 16 weeks. The bar chart shows the grass species in alphabetical order and each accession

has one bar representing one cut in 16 weeks and one representing two cuts in 16 weeks. The

scatter plot shows the same data, but in the context where you can clearly see which accessions

and species stand out. Chart 5 shows the species average between all accessions shown in

Appendix 2, clearly showing which species is the best.

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

g/m

2

2nd Harvest Average DM YieldsAvg. Species DM

8


Chart 3

Chart 4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Tw

o C

uts

One Cut

Yield kg/m2 Andropogo

n gayanus

Brachiaria

brizantha

Brachiaria

decumbens

Brachiarai

mutica

Chloris

gayana

Brachiaria

ruziziensis

Panicum

maximum

Pennisetum

purpureum

Setaria

sphaceleta

9


Chart 5

Nutritional Quality Data

The nutritional analysis process had two steps: NIRS Scanning and Wet Chemistry. With NIRS

scanning we followed the guidelines set by the ILRI-Ethiopia Nutrition Laboratory in Analytical

Methods for Feeds, Animal Excrements, and Animal Tissues, compiled by Mebrahtu Ogbai and

Tenaye Sereke Berhan. This consisted mainly of grinding, packaging, and scanning the samples

using the Near Infrared Spectroscope (NIRS). The NIRS machine uses wavelengths and the

electromagnetic spectrum. The spectra are then compared to spectra from samples in the known

laboratory analysis results using an equation and nutritive values are then predicted. In simple

terms the molecular vibrations and reflections give wavelengths and number on the spectra every

two wavelengths. The NIRS machine is useful because it provides quick, cheap, and accurate

results, without the expense and time of chemistry in the laboratory. However, the results are

only as accurate as the standard equation being used. NIRS scanning can be applied towards

animal nutrition and forage diet and quality. Nutritive values can also be a key factor in

management decisions when it comes to forages to grow.

With the data given from scanning, the RSQ values can be viewed as Chart 6, where we used the

Mixed Grass 2010 equation. And from these values, we selected outliers that had a GH number

ranging from 3.039 to 4.849, and there were 38 total samples selected for wet chemistry. With

these samples we ran Dry Matter, Ash, Crude Protein, NDF, ADF, and lignin tests on them using

012345678

kg

/m2

Average Yield

1 Cut

2 Cuts

10


Analytical Methods for Feeds, Animal Excrements, and Animal Tissues, by the ILRI-Ethiopia

Nutrition Laboratory and compiled by Mebrahtu Ogbai and Tenaye Sereke Berhan.

Chart 6 Old Equation Chart 7 New Equation

While there is room for error in the scanning, there is also a larger room for error in the

laboratory. To control for these errors, duplicates are analyzed for each sample (laboratory)

number scanned, and laboratory methods are performed with precision, recording any problems

that may affect the data, and then the results are calculated with a small margin of error. For

example, one of the most important procedures was recording the correct hot weight of each

sample and crucible they were put into. By recording their hot weight, you also control for the

amount of moisture in the room, and on the scale. They would have to be in the oven for at least

an hour before weighing, at 105 degrees Celsius. This is just one example of the meticulous

procedures done in the lab. A more in-depth view of the methodical procedures done in the

laboratory can be found in the lab manual, Analytical Methods for Feeds, Animal Excrements,

and Animal Tissues. From this data created by wet chemistry, we compared the results to their

predicted values on the NIRS machine and then inserted the data into the program to strengthen

the mixed grass equation. We were now able to re-predict the scanned data and receive stronger

results for each of the grasses scanned in the original equation. There was a stronger correlation

between the outliers which now had more precise values. The new R-squared values under this

new equation can be viewed as Chart 7. Charts 8-11 show correlations with the new equation are

extremely strong. We now have a stronger equation which will produce more accurate results for

scanning grass samples in the future. With the newly strengthened equation, we now have

Constituent RSQ

DM 0.8554

ASH 0.9408

CP 0.9792

NDF 0.7761

ADF 0.838

ADL 0.818

Constituent RSQ

DM

0.8579

ASH

0.9315

CP

0.9771

NDF

0.7756

ADF

0.843

ADL 0.8367

11


accurate nutritional quality data that will be used to compare with yield data, to not only see

which grass had the highest nutrition, but if nutrition decreases after cuttings and which grass is

the best based upon a high nutritional value and a high yield.

y = 0.9997x - 0.6569

R² = 0.9937

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5 10 15 20

New

Eq

ua

tio

n

Old Equation

Crude Protein

Series1

Linear (Series1)

y = 1.0481x + 0.2765

R² = 0.9496

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

New

Eq

ua

tio

n

Old Equation

ADL

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Chart 8-11

12


y = 0.9114x + 5.2681

R² = 0.976

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 20 40 60 80 100

New

Eq

ua

tio

n

Old Equation

NDF

Series1

Linear (Series1)

y = 0.9558x - 2.138

R² = 0.9918

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

New

Eq

ua

tio

n

Old Equation

ADF

ADF

Linear (ADF)

13


Chart 12

Chart 13

02468

1012

CP

%

Average Crude Protein

16 Week Cutting

8 Week Cutting

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

ND

F %

Average NDF

16 Week Cutting

8 Week Cuttings

14


Chart 14

Chart 15

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000

Yie

ld g

/m2

Crude Protein Values

Yield vs Crude Protein

Andropogon gayanus

Brachiaria brizantha

Brachiaria decumbens

Brachiaria mutica

Brachiaria ruziziensis

Chloris gayana

Panicum Maximum

Pennisetum purpureum

Setaria sphaceleta

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

50.000 55.000 60.000 65.000 70.000 75.000 80.000 85.000

Yie

ld g

/m2

NDF

Yield vs NDF

Andropogon gayanus



Brachiaria mutica


Chloris gayana

Panicum maximum


Setaria sphacelata

15


Charts 12 and 13 show the two most important values when looking at nutritional quality, crude

protein and NDF. These bar graphs represent the average values for each species between the

samples that were cut at 8 and 16 weeks. In Charts 14 and 15 we then compared the CP and NDF

values of all the accessions against their yield, hoping to find the grass that had both high

nutrition and yield. These values were all taken from the one cutting of the sample in the harvest

at 16 weeks. Then we calculated the Relative Feed Value and Metabolizable Energy using the

following equations taken from the Alberta Government Ag-Info Centre, “Know Your Feed

Terms.”

Relative Feed Value RFV = ( %DDM X %DMI)/ 1.29

%DDM Digestible dry Matter = 88.9 - ( 0.779 * % ADF)

DMI as % of body weight = 120/NDF%

Metabolizable Energy ME = 3.62*TDN

Legumes and grasses TDN = 88.9 - (.79*ADF%)

The Relative Feed Value is, “a way to compare the potential of two or more like forages for

energy intake” and the higher the RFV, the higher quality of the grass, while the Metabolizable

Energy represents just how much energy is available from the feed (Government of Alberta 5).

After the calculation, the values for each accession average were plotted against their yield and

the charts looked very similar and can be seen in Chart 16 and 17. This shows ME and RFV

values are similar when plotted against yield. The graphs show the same accessions in the same

association to the other accessions displayed.

Chart 16

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

Yie

ld g

/m2

ME

ME vs YieldAndropogon gayanus



Brachiaria mutica


Chloris gayana

Panicum maximum


Setaria sphacelata

16


Chart 17

Finding What Farmers Need

I spent a day in the field interviewing eight farmers, four women and four men, to find out more

about the typical smallholder farmer in the area and what they look for when selecting crops and

forages to grow. We went to the Ada’a Liben region, southeast of Addis and near the larger city,

Debre Zeit. A map of this area can be found on Appendix 4.

Ada’a Liben is one of the 12 woredas in East Shoa zone located about 45 kms south-east of

Addis Ababa, and it covers an area of 1750 km2 (IPMS 6). According to CACC (Central

Agricultural Census Commission, 2003), total agricultural population of the woreda is estimated

at 202,276. There are 60 PAs (45 in rural and 15 urban) in Ada’a-Liben woreda. About 78 % of

the household population who are over 10 years of age are engaged in full agricultural activities,

19.5 % in partial and 2.6 % in non-agricultural activities. This area is also known nationally for

its Teff production, and they also produce wheat in medium to high altitudes, barley, maize, and

sorgum, pulse in moist areas, lentils, honey, and horticulture. Livestock are very important as

well, the most common being cattle, sheep, goat, and poultry. Dairy farming is on the rise with

over 800 smallholder dairy farmers who are involved in the cooperatives for marketing milk

production. (IPMS 6). “There are two cropping seasons. . . Belg (short rainy season) from March

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

Yie

ld g

/m2

RSV

RFV vs YieldAndropogon gayanus



Brachiaria mutica


Chloris gayana

Panicum maximum


Setaria sphacelata

17


to April and meher (main rainy season) from June to September” (IPMS 8). “Total cultivated

land account for 64,412 ha. Out of this 64,088 ha is rural and 324 ha is urban” (IPMS 11).

There are also programs for agricultural extension, serviced mostly by the government. There are

both the Development Agents (DA) and a new program called Farmer Training Centers (FTC).

Both of these programs work to train employees who then teach better farming practices to the

farmers in their area. Anything from selecting which crop is suitable to grow in that area to how

to prevent soil erosion is taught when they meet. Smallholder farmers then have the opportunities

to improve their practices and also share advice and ideas with other farmers in the area. There

are problems that arise with extension centers as well including: “insufficient number of DAs,

lack of demonstration materials, lack of practical and applicable knowledge by DAs, and

involvement of DAs in non-extension activities such as input distribution and credit collection”

(IPMS 18).

We selected the famers to be interviewed based on who ILRI had previously given forage seed

to, staying within the Peasant’s Association of Babogaya, randomly selecting both women and

men, and they had to be dairy farmers with either local or cross-bred cattle. They were asked a

serious of ten questions based on their farm size and operation, forages grown, and even

extension services used. None of these results provide good statistical data because we did not

interview a large quantity of farmers, but it served as more of an informative survey to find out

what small holder farms are like and to compare the farms of males and females. Our main

objective was to find out what farmers look for when they select a forage to grow on their land,

and as stated earlier the hypothesis was that farmers will look for what can bring them the

highest yield and in turn, the most money in the market system. A copy of the questions can be

found on Appendix 5 and you can see the answers compiled in three charts in Appendix 6, with a

compressed chart comparing the differences between the head of households being males or

females as Appendix 7. When comparing males and females, males not only have more owned

land, but in most cases own more livestock as well. Charts 17 and 18 show the number of

animals found on each farm as well as the most popular feed used by farmers. These values were

given by taking the most popular by each farmer as 1,2,3 and so on. Those values were then

multiplied by a weighted value of …3,2,1 to find out which was most popular. Crop residue was

most commonly used and each farmer, because they had a cross bred dairy cow, used

concentrates as well.

18


0

5

10

15

20

25

Total in 8 Farms

Number of Animals on Farm

Local Cattle Oxen X-Bred Cattle Sheep Donkeys

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Crop

Residue

Stubble

Grazing

Natural

Pasture

Household

Waste

Concentrate Forages

Current Feed

Rx3,2,1

/Forages …

0

1

2

3

4

5

Napier Vetch Oats Lablab Fodder

Trees

Number of Forages Grown by

Surveyed Farmers

Chart 19

Chart 20

Chart 18

19


Chart 21

Charts 20 and 21 portray just what it is that farmers look for in a forage and which ones they

grow; the only grasses being Napier and Oats, while Vetch and Lablab are legumes. You can

also see that although I only interviewed eight farmers, all of them preferred forages with high

yields.

From the answers to their questions I was able to see how the farmers used the seeds ILRI has

provided in their backyards, plots, and fields. When asked what they look for in a forage, the

number one answer for all eight farmers was yield, and second nutritional quality, ease of

propagation, or what is best for their land area. Most farmers also encounter feed shortages

constantly throughout the year and purchase the feed and concentrates for their cross bred cattle.

These cross bred cattle however, produce a lot more milk than the local cattle, and for that reason

require more nutrition and feed then the local cattle and oxen. It is now important to take what

we have learned and match our resources to meet their demands.

020406080

100120

DM

kg

/m2

*M

E

Species

Metabolizable Energy in MJ/m2

05

10152025

What Farmers Look for in Forages

R x3,2,1

Chart 22

20


Chart 22 shows the Metabolizable energy values in megajoules per m2, this was calculated by

the following equation:

MJ/m2=ME*Yield (kg/m2)*4.18

Chart 23

Chart 22 shows the highest performing grasses found in our study. This was found by

multiplying the ME values with the DM yield and shown in a column chart. Chart 23 is a

compiled chart created from the literature found online and in the informative leaflets regarding

what farmers look for in forages. Their preferences are ranked in order going down the right side

of the chart, and a letter or number is given for each grass; the best being VH or VF, followed by

H or F, G, and M. If a grass performed well under a category it is marked by a dark yellow,

followed by light yellow and pale, consecutively. From this chart it is seen that Pennisetum

purpureum, Panicum maximum, and Brachiaria ruziziensis outperform the others when it comes

to meeting the needs of farmers. While in Chart 22 the highest performing grasses found in our

study were Pennisetum purpureum, Andropogon gayanus, and Brachiaria decumbens .

21


Conclusion: Meeting the Needs of Farmers

From these compiled charts and diagrams it is clear that none of the grasses tested in this

experiment compare to Napier grass in yield nor Metabolizable Energy available for livestock

feed under the conditions of this experiment. The species average’s differences in nutritional

quality were very small although they did vary at the accession level. That small difference goes

unnoticed with the average small holder dairy farmers today. So if farmers care mostly about

yield, how can we persuade them to grow an alternative that comes nowhere close to the yields

of Napier? It was discussed quite often that we should be looking for alternative grasses at the

ASARECA Napier grass smut and stunt disease workshop back in June; alternatives such as

Panicum maximum, Brachiaria, and crop residues were suggested (ASARECA). But if farmers

prefer grasses with high yields and are not adapted to change, should we be looking for

alternative grasses? There is a solution to this issue that does not lie within exploring alternative

grasses, but finding and utilizing the disease resistant strains of Napier grass. The results of

scientific studies lack value until they are shared with those who need them most, which is why

outreach to the smallholder farmers is important.

This study also opens up many doors for possible experiments in the future. One issue that could

be explored would be to repeat this experiment in different locations to confirm results in a wider

range of soil, rainfall, and temperature combinations. Another would be to change the cutting

intervals and species. This study had cutting intervals that were longer than recommended in

literature, so it would be good to repeat this study using the same intervals as farmers. It would

also be good to explore different species because as stated earlier, some grasses perform better in

different areas. Regarding the surveys, we found interesting results and it was good to see the

two traits used for selection in research are yield and nutritional quality, which were the top

preferences for forage selection by farmers. It would also be useful to do a large scale interview

with farmers in different areas to get a more precise definition of what farmers look for in

forages; providing genebank staff with the information needed to make better selections for

research and evaluation.

“Farm animals are an ancient, vital and renewable natural resource. Throughout the developing

world, they are means for hundreds of millions of people to escape absolute poverty” (ILRI).

This study has not only shown the value of Napier grass in livestock systems, but highlighted the

issues to test in possible experiments in the future. Now is the time to match the resources we

have available in the genebank to meet the needs of smallholder farmers today.

22


References

Alberta Government Ag-Info Centre . "Know Your Feed Terms." Agriculture, Food, and Rural

Development. Ed. Tennis Marx. N.p., 22 June 2002. Web. 20 July 2006.

Blezinger, Steve. "Developing a Sound Forage Analyses a Program Part 2." Cattle Today. N.p.,

Sept. 1999. Web. 30 Oct. 2009.

Bogdan, A. V. 1977. Tropical Pasture and Fodder Plants (Grasses and Legumes). London:

Longman. Tropical Agriculture Series.

CGIAR. "Safeguarding the World's Agricultural Legacy."

Hanson, J., Forage Diversity Department ILRI. "Forage diversity activities at the ILRI." 15 July

Oct. 2008. Print. 2010: 1-2. Print.

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Gbase/Default.htm.

http://www.tropicalforages.info/.

Humphreys, L. R. 1980. A Guide to Better pastures for the Tropics and Sub-Tropics. Wright

Stephenson & Co, Australia.

IPMS. Ada’a – Liben Woreda Pilot Learning Site Diagnosis and Program Design. 2005. 5-17.

Print.

Kitaba, A., and Tamir B. 2007. Effect of Harvesting Stage and Nutrient Levels on Nutritive

Values of Natural Pasture in Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Agricultura Tropica et

Subtropica 40:1.

Lekasi J K 2000. Manure management in the Kenya Highlands: collection, storage and

utilization to enhance fertilizer quantity and quality. PhD Thesis. Coventry University,

UK.

Mwendia, S. W., Wanyoike, M., Wahome, R. G. and Mwangi, D. M. 2006. Farmers’

perceptions on importance and constraints facing Napier grass production in Central

Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18: (11).

Ogbai, Mebrahtu, and Tenaye S. Berhan. 1997. Analytical Methods for Feeds, Animal

Excrements and Animal Tissues. Addis Ababa: Nutritional Laboratory, ILRI.

Olsen, F. J.1973. Effects of Cutting Management on a Desmodium intortum (Mill.) Urb / Setaria

sphacelata (Schumach.) Mixture. Agron. J. 65: 714-716.

Orodho, A. B. 2006. The role and importance of Napier grass in the smallholder dairy industry

in Kenya. http://wwww.fao.org/AG/AGP/AGPC/doc/newpub/napier/napier_kenya.htm.

23


Peeler, E.J. and Omore A.O. 1997. Manual of livestock production systems in Kenya.

2nd

Edition. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Nairobi . 138pp.

Ponsens, J., J. Hanson, J. Schellberg, and Moeseler, B. M.. 2010. Characterization of phenotypic

diversity, yield and response to drought stress in a collection of Rhodes grass (Chloris

gayana Kunth) accessions. Field Crops Research 118: 57-72.

Roberts, C. A., Workman J. and Reeves, J. B. (eds.) 2004. Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in

Agriculture. Vol. 44. Madison: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.

Schroeder, J. W. "Interpreting Composition and Determining Market Value Quality

Forage." North Dakota State University . NDSU, June 2004. Web. 30 Oct. 2009.

Staal, S., Chege, L., Kenyanjui, M., Kimari, A., Lukuyu, B., Njumbi, D., Owango, M., Tanner, J.

C., Thorpe, W. and Wambugu, M. 1997. Characterisation of dairy systems supplying the

Nairobi milk market. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi .

Van de Wouw, M., Jorge, M.A.B., Bierwirth, J., Hanson, J., 2008. Characterisation of a

collection of perennial Panicum species. Trop. Grasslands 42, 40–53.

Wan Hassan, W. E., Phipps R. H. and Owen E. 1990. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of

improved pasture species in Malaysia. Tropical Agriculture, 67: 303-308.

24


Pictures through Project

Welcome to ILRI At Zwai Test Plot Assessing Yield Traits in Zwai

NIRS Scanning Samples Hot Weighing Samples Placing Samples in Dry Oven for ASH

Mixing Acid with Samples for Boiling Rinsing Samples for ADF One X-bred Dairy at Poor Farm

Interviewing Farmer in Ada’a Liben Seven X-Bred Dairy at Larger Farm Interviewing Farmer in Ada’a Liben

25


The Grasses

Brachiaria brizantha Andropogon gayanus Brachiaria decumbens

Brachiaria mutica Brachiaria ruziziensis Chloris gayana

Panicum maximum Pennisetum purpureum Setaria sphacelata

26


Appendix 1

Species Andropogon gayanus

Com. Name Gamba grass

Morphology Perennial, fibrous roots close to the surface, short rhizomes

Height 2-4 m. high

Prop. Method Seed, Sown in beds

Drought Tol. Excellent Drought Tolerance

Flood Tol. Grow in Seasonal Floodplains

Frost/Fire No Frost, Fire Tolerant

Soil Quality Different Soils (-1,000 m)

Yield 4-25 DM t/ha

Nut. Quality Maturity causes coarseness, LWGs up to 250 kg/ha/yr,m, CP 7-10%, 30-60% IVDM

Species Brachiaria brizantha

Com. Name Signal grass

Morphology Tufted Perennial

Height 60–150 cm

Prop. Method vegetatively by sods, seeds, root pieces and stems, with legumes,

Drought Tol. Fair tolerance to drought

Flood Tol. No

Frost/Fire No Fire, Survive frost

Soil Quality Different Soils

Yield

Varies, (dry) 7 850 kg DM/ha to (green matter) 10 368 to 17 377 kg/ha, DM 8–20

t/ha/yr.

Nut. Quality Crude Protein Tropical- 7–16% and digestibility 51–75%, IVDMD 75-55% with age

Species Brachiaria decumbens

Com. Name Surinam Grass

Morphology

Low-growing rhizomatous and stoloniferous bright green moderately hairy leaves, 2

rows rachis

Height 10 cm axis

Prop. Method vegetative material, seeds stored or scarified before planting

Drought Tol. facilitating water infiltration and preventing erosion

Flood Tol. Bad in waterlogged areas

Frost/Fire Poor performance in frost

Soil Quality Poor soils, sea lvl- +1750

Yield 4-10 T DM/ha

Nut. Quality high digestability, LWG x2 w/ fert., legumes needed, 9-20% CP, Dig. 50-80%

Species Brachiaria mutica

27


Com. Name Para grass

Morphology

Creeping, hairy, leaves 30 cm, semi-aquatic, short-culmed, high with long, hairy leaf-

blades spikelets 3-3.5 mm long,stolon branches

Height 200 cm

Prop. Method

Hand plant, or disc, Sprigs in ashes of rainforest or swampy land, helps prevent

erosion

Drought Tol. Fair in Drought (Swampy Environment)

Flood Tol. high-rainfall or in areas with 900 mm per year

Frost/Fire frost sensitive and severely affected by it, but persists well

Soil Quality Different Soils Sea-level to 1 000 m.

Yield Up to 31 kg/ha.

Nut. Quality 14–20% CP IVDMD 65–80% for leafy regrowth, 55–65% top

Species Brachiaria ruziziensis

Com. Name Ruzi grass

Morphology Perennial, softer leaves than Bb, short rhizomes, spikelike racemes over 3 mm wide,

Height

Prop. Method Drill seed in seedbed

Drought Tol. Good drought tolerance

Flood Tol.

Frost/Fire Killed by frost and fire

Soil Quality Fertile Soil, good drainage

Yield

21 159 kg DM/ha, 16 807-25 585 kg DM/ha, and 31 352- 21 468 GM/ha, (11-27,000

DM kg/ha)

Nut. Quality CP 7-13%, Dig. 55-75%

Species Chloris gayana

Com. Name Rhodes Grass

Morphology Tufted Perennial, stolon stems, Inflorescence 15 spikes, two whorls,

Height 90 cm (varies) (1.5 m)

Prop. Method Sown into ashes, drill

Drought Tol. Roots make good drought toleranc, 691- 1 597 mm rain

Flood Tol. Tolerates Seasonal Waterlogging

Frost/Fire Can survive fire and sub-zero temp, doesn't grow in shade

Soil Quality Different Soils, prefers loams and clays

Yield 10-25 t/ha

Nut. Quality

LWG range 160 kg/head and 850 kg/ha , CP vary with age and N+ 17%-3% IVDMD

40-80%, Na 300-3,100 ppm

Species Panicum Maximum

Com. Name Guinea Grass

Morphology Tufted perennial, creeping rhizome, leaf blades, open spikelets, purple red, 12-40 cm

28


long,

Height 1.5-3.5 m tall, with stems to about 10 mm diameter

Prop. Method Drill, transplant over root cuttings

Drought Tol. Not really,

Flood Tol. No

Frost/Fire Does survive shading (variable) Not frost, Fire doesn't harm long

Soil Quality Diff soils w/ good fert

Yield (10-) 20-30 (-60) t/ha DM

Nut. Quality

N & soil fert. increases LWG, IVDMD 64-50% CP 6-25%, even 5-10% Ca from 0.6-

0.8% and Na from 0.07-0.12%

Species Pennisetum purpureum

Com. Name Napier/ Elephant Grass

Morphology

Perennial, rig. Roots, leaf sheaths 20-40 mm wide, spike yellow-brown color,, 3

nodes,

Height 180-360 cm

Prop. Method Root cuttings or stem pieces

Drought Tol. Excellent Drought Resistance (Roots)

Flood Tol. No, grows best in high rainfall

Frost/Fire No frost resistance,

Soil Quality Fertile soil/loams, yields decline without fertilizer

Yield 10-30 t/ha/yr common Up to 80 w/ fert., 2-10 if bad

Nut. Quality

CP < w/ age 10-7.6%, CP and IVDMD leaf range from 9.5-19.7%, and 68-74% LWG

of 1 kg per day

Species Setaria sphacelata

Com. Name Setaria

Morphology

Leaves bluish grey-green, leaf blades soft, basal leaf sheaths, spike has bristles and

spikelets, stigmata purple or white

Height 45-180 cm high or 2 m tall tussock

Prop. Method rooted cuttings or divided root-stocks, stored seeds drilling seed is better

Drought Tol. Fair Drought Tolerance, Mod. Shade

Flood Tol. Tolerates waterlogging short periods

Frost/Fire Fair fire and frost tolerance

Soil Quality Fertile soils pH 5.5-6.5 (NPK app)

Yield 10,000-15,000 kg/ha (26,000 w/ irrigation) LWG 500-800 kg/ha

Nut. Quality CP 6-20% digestibility 50-65% (<w/age)

29


Appendix 2

EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL

Theme: People Livestock and the Environment

Operating Project: Forage Diversity

Experiment no.: PL04/09/01

Lead scientist(s): Evans Basweti and Jean Hanson

Collaborators: PLE1

Research assistant: Asebe Abdena

Experiment title: Evaluation of productivity and nutritional quality of a range of tropical

grasses

Location: Zwai, Ethiopia

Date: 2009

Justification

Smallholder dairy farming in Sub Saharan Africa relies mainly on availability of sufficient high

quality feed to supplement available crop residues and natural pasture. Pennisetum purpureum,

also known as Napier grass, is the most important forage for smallholder dairy in East Africa due

to high yields, ease of propagation, and a broad ecological range. Recently however, Napier

grass is being threatened by Napier head smut, a fungal disease caused by Ustilago

kamerunensis, which results in drastically decreased biomass as well as Napier stunt, a disease

caused by a phytoplasma, which causes severe stunting and yield reduction.

Resource-poor and landless farmers are particularly affected by these yield reductions to the

extent that they cannot produce sufficient feed for their cows or sale to others. Farmers have to

sell animals because they do not have enough feed and cannot afford to buy it at current prices.

With fewer animals, the farmers have less milk so the nutrition of children suffers. Similarly

without surplus milk to sell their income decreases and school fees and other expenses cannot be

met. Unless resistance to these diseases or alternative grasses are identified, the smallholder

dairy industry could decline substantially.

There are several possible alternatives to Napier grass which are high yielding tropical grasses

that have already been studied and commercial cultivars developed. They include: Panicum

maximum, Brachiaria decumbens, Setaria sphacelata, Chloris gayana, Andropogon gayanus,

Brachiaria brizantha, and Brachiaria ruziziensis.

30


Another grass which is gaining popularity in some countries is Brachiaria mutica. As a second

part to this study, yields are being compared for some possible alternatives to Brachiaria mutica,

a popular grass in India and South America, which is being used for waste-water management.

Possible grasses which are suitable for seasonal water-logging include: Andropogon gayanus,

Chloris gayana, and Setaria sphacelata.

Introduction

Forage quantity and quality are the most important constraints affecting smallholder dairy

production in the tropics. Dairy generates more regular household income and jobs than any

other enterprise. In Kenya, resource poor smallholder dairy farmers produce more than 80% of

the marketed milk (Peeler and Omore, 1997). Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) continues

to be the major feed for cut-and-carry zero grazing dairy systems in East Africa. It constitutes

between 40 to 80% of the forage for the smallholder dairy farms (Staal et al., 1997). In Kenya

alone, more than 0.3 million smallholder dairy producers (53%) rely on Napier grass as a major

source of feed.

Napier grass has an average yield of 10-30 t DM/ha and a crude protein content of 7-15%. The

possible alternatives include Panicum maximum (10-20 t DM/ha and 6-20% CP), Andropogon

gayanus (4-20 t DM/ha and 4-10% CP), Brachiaria brizantha (8-20 t DM/ha and 4-10% CP),

and Brachiaria ruziziensis (11-27 t DM/ha and 7-13% CP) (www.tropicalforages.info).

Brachiaria mutica performs best in seasonally inundated or high rainfall environments because if

can withstand long-term flooding. The range in yield is usually from 5-12 t DM/ha with a crude

protein content of 10-16%. The possible alternatives, Brachiaria decumbens, Chloris gayana,

and Setaria sphacelata also grow well in seasonal waterlogged areas, with an average yield of 4-

10 t, 10-25 t, and 10-15 t DM/ha respectively. Their crude protein ranges from 9-15%, 4-13%,

and 6-10% respectively (www.tropicalforages.info).

Setaria sphacelata can grow on soils ranging from sand to clay loam and also heavy clay with

low fertility and respond well to improved fertility. It also grows naturally at altitudes ranging

from sea level to 3300 m and temperatures of 18-220C. Olsen (1973) determined the influence of

two heights (8 and 20cm) and three frequencies of cutting (3, 6, and 9 weeks) on yield, botanical

composition, and nutritive value of Setaria sphacelata grown in association with Desmodium

intortum in Uganda. He noticed significant differences in CP among cutting frequencies. As the

cutting interval increased, the CP content decreased. In vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDM)

varied from 61.9 to 68.2%. As the cutting interval increased, the IVDM percent decreased.

Wan Hassan et al (1990) evaluated dry matter yield and nutritive value of Setaria sphacelata,

Pennisetum purpureum, Panicum maximum, and Brachiaria decumbens at 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-week

cutting interval over a three year period in Malaysia. They reported that there were no significant

differences between grasses in the first harvest year and only small differences in the later yield.

Kitaba and Tamir (2007) reported on the effect of harvesting stage and nutrient levels on

nutritive values of natural pasture in the central highlands of Ethiopia and found that advancing

the harvesting stage significantly decreased the CP content of the herbage from the natural

pasture (Kitaba and Tamir 2007).

31


Materials and Methods

Study site and plant selection

Grasses with high Dry Matter yield will be selected for this study. Up to 5 of the best biomass

producing accessions based on visual inspection of each of the following grass species will be

used to cover some of the diversity in genotypes within the species: Panicum maximum,

Brachiaria decumbens, Setaria sphacelata, Chloris gayana, Andropogon gayanus, Brachiaria

brizantha, and Brachiaria ruziziensis. Brachiaria mutica and Pennisetum purpureum will be

used as controls in the experiment (See chart attached). These species are currently considered

to be the best alternatives and are already established in plots of 10m2 at the International

Livestock Research Institute Forage Production Site in Zwai, in the Ethiopian Rift Valley.

List of grasses used in the experiment

Grass species Common name Accession number

Andropogon gayanus Gamba grass 852, 15748, 15750, 15755, 16211

Brachiaria brizantha Brachiaria 684, 11088, 11257, 13620

Brachiaria decumbens Signal grass 7364, 13165, 13205, 14720, 14721

Brachiaria mutica Para grass 6964

Brachiaria ruziziensis Ruzi grass 13332, 13614, 14743, 14771, 14774, 14813

Chloris gayana

Rhodes grass 645, 6628,6633, 6634, 7384, 13072, 15575,

15576, 19589, 19593

Panicum maximum Guinea grass 13, 145, 1009, 9676, 13526, 16007

Pennisetum purpureum Napier grass 14984, 16786, 16803, 16835, 16837

Setaria sphacelata Setaria grass 143, 6543, 8671, 13102, 14757

The altitude of the location is 1640m a.s.l. (7◦54_N, 38◦44_E). The average annual rainfall of the

area is 600mm, however, rains are irregular each year. The typical dry season ranges from

October to February, and the rainy season peaks in July and August. The average yearly

temperature in Zwai has a minimum of 13◦C and a maximum of 27 ◦C. The soil type is loamy

sand, also classified as a Vitric Andosol (van de Wouw et al., 2008). The chemical properties of

the soil at 0.15 and 0.5m depth were respectively pH 8.1 and 8.4, organic matter 2% and 1%, and

nitrogen 0.13% and 0.07%. Available phosphorus was 5ppm and potassium was 5meq./100g soil

at both depths (ILRI analysis).

Data collection

At the start of the long rains, plots will be clear cut to 5cm. Each plot of the selected accessions

will be divided into two treatments and two 50cm2 quadrants clipped from each treatment

(referred to as rep 1 and 2). One treatment will be harvested both at the 8th

and 16th

week, while

the other treatment will be harvested once only in the 16th

week. Total fresh weight will be

recorded and then a weighed sub sample of about 300g taken and dried at 600C in a drying oven

for two days. These sub samples will be reweighed and sub sample dry weight calculated.

Samples will be ground to pass a 1mm sieve and submitted for nutritional analysis.

32


Nutritional analysis

Analysis will be done using an infrared electromagnetic spectrum, FOSS NIRSystems. Before

scanning, the samples will be oven-dried in paper envelopes at 550C overnight to reduce excess

moisture. The next day samples will be put into a desiccator to cool down and packed carefully

in cups for scanning. Care will be taken to keep cases clean and contamination away from the

samples to ensure proper results for scanning. It is expected that 700 data points will be

collected from the 1,100-2,500 nm range at every two wavelengths. The spectra file will be used

with the 2010 Mixed Grass Equation to predict dry matter, ash, nitrogen/protein, fiber, and lignin

content.

Outliers from the NIRS predictions will be submitted for nutritional analysis using the standard

procedures and parameters from the ILRI-Ethiopia Analytical Services Laboratory in the lab

manual, Analytical Methods for Feeds, Animal Excrements, and Animal Tissues, adapted and

compiled by Mebrahtu Ogbai and Tenaye Sereke Berhan (1997). The samples will be analyzed

for DM-Ash, NDF, ADF and Protein by collecting crucible weights, sample weights, ash, and

acidic values in some cases. From this data it will be possible to obtain accurate results of the

nutritive value of each sample tested. The results will then be used in the NIRS software to

strengthen the equation and correlation for future scanning of mixed grass samples completed,

resulting in fewer outliers and more accurate results.

Data analysis

Data will be analyzed using ANOVA, correlation and regression analysis. After the nutritional

quality and productivity data has been collected, it will be possible to compare the results to

previous results and studies done by others and determine validity. From the data we will

compare the nutritional quality and productivity of each tropical grass accession and species, and

in turn see which grass would be the best possible alternative to Pennisetum purpureum and

Brachiaria mutica. Yield traits will be assessed to find if it is more productive to cut once or

twice in a four month period. Nutritional traits will be evaluated to find which species have

higher nutritional value and effects of cutting interval and harvest age on nutritive value.

Standard equations will be used to calculate Metabolizable energy (ME) per kg of dry matter and

relative feed value to compare among accessions.

References

Bogdan, A. V. 1977. Tropical Pasture and Fodder Plants (Grasses and Legumes). London:

Longman. Tropical Agriculture Series.

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Gbase/Default.htm.

http://www.tropicalforages.info/.

33


Humphreys, L. R. 1980. A Guide to Better pastures for the Tropics and Sub-Tropics. Wright

Stephenson & Co, Australia.

Kitaba, A., and Tamir B. 2007. Effect of Harvesting Stage and Nutrient Levels on Nutritive

Values of Natural Pasture in Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Agricultura Tropica et

Subtropica 40:1.

Mwendia, S. W., Wanyoike, M., Wahome, R. G. and Mwangi, D. M. 2006. Farmers’

perceptions on importance and constraints facing Napier grass production in Central

Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18: (11).

Ogbai, Mebrahtu, and Tenaye S. Berhan. 1997. Analytical Methods for Feeds, Animal

Excrements and Animal Tissues. Addis Ababa: Nutritional Laboratory, ILRI.

Olsen, F. J.1973. Effects of Cutting Management on a Desmodium intortum (Mill.) Urb / Setaria

sphacelata (Schumach.) Mixture. Agron. J. 65: 714-716.

Orodho, A. B. 2006. The role and importance of Napier grass in the smallholder dairy industry

in Kenya. http://wwww.fao.org/AG/AGP/AGPC/doc/newpub/napier/napier_kenya.htm.

Peeler, E.J. and Omore A.O. 1997. Manual of livestock production systems in Kenya.

2nd

Edition. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Nairobi . 138pp.

Ponsens, J., J. Hanson, J. Schellberg, and Moeseler, B. M.. 2010. Characterization of phenotypic

diversity, yield and response to drought stress in a collection of Rhodes grass (Chloris

gayana Kunth) accessions. Field Crops Research 118: 57-72.

Roberts, C. A., Workman J. and Reeves, J. B. (eds.) 2004. Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in

Agriculture. Vol. 44. Madison: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.

Staal, S., Chege, L., Kenyanjui, M., Kimari, A., Lukuyu, B., Njumbi, D., Owango, M., Tanner, J.

C., Thorpe, W. and Wambugu, M. 1997. Characterisation of dairy systems supplying the

Nairobi milk market. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi .

Van de Wouw, M., Jorge, M.A.B., Bierwirth, J., Hanson, J., 2008. Characterisation of a

collection of perennial Panicum species. Trop. Grasslands 42, 40–53.

Wan Hassan, W. E., Phipps R. H. and Owen E. 1990. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of

improved pasture species in Malaysia. Tropical Agriculture, 67: 303-308.

34


Gamba grass (Andropogon gayanus) for livestock feed on small-scale farms

Objective To provide high quality forage for livestock feed in the tropics and warmer subtropics

Description

A large perennial tufted grass up to 2m high

Excellent drought tolerance withstanding dry spells of up to nine months

High dry matter yields and can be cut at 30 day intervals

Palatable when young

Adapted to a wide range of soil types and performs well without fertilizer

Used for continuous and rotational grazing

Limits of use

As it approaches and reaches maturity, it coarsens and nutritional value declines after flowering

Sensitive to cold and not tolerant of frost

Potential environmental weed without grazing management Management Field preparation − prepared or semi-prepared seedbed Establishment − sow at the beginning of the rainy season at 5kg per hectare of clean seeds at 1 to 2.5cm depth. Seeds may be of low quality, resulting in poor seedling vigour and unreliable establishment so young rooted tillers may also be used Fertilizer − 100kg DAP per hectare after sowing to support early growth and establishment Weeding − hand weed after establishment but may also suppress weeds by shading and root competition in dry areas Harvesting − intervals of more than six weeks between cuttings and use a cutting height of about 4cm to maintain productivity and a good stand Performance Expect about 4-25 tonnes per hectare dry matter yields. Crude protein is 7-10% in young growth (on moderately fertile soils) declining to as low as 1.5% at maturity. Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners

Appendix 3

35


Brachiaria brizantha grass for livestock feed on small-scale farms

Objective To provide high quality forage for livestock feed in the humid and sub-humid tropics Description

A leafy, perennial tufted grass 60-120cm high,

Adapted to a wide range of soil types and grows well on acid soils

Very palatable and good resistance to grazing

Good resistance to spittlebug

Can withstand dry seasons of up to 6 months

Use as permanent pasture for grazing and cutting for fresh feed and for hay

Limits of use

Will not tolerate fire or flooding

Needs moderate to high fertility soils for good productivity

May cause photosensitization, particularly in sheep and goats

Management Field preparation – well-prepared seed-bed is preferred Establishment – broadcast at 2–4 kg/ha lightly covered and compacted. It can be propagated vegetatively by root splits Fertilizer – DAP at 100kg per hectare during establishment and nitrogen at 100kg per hectare after every cut. Very responsive to Nitrogen, Weeding – weed twice after planting at monthly intervals during establishment. Once established it can spread and suppress weeds Harvesting – should be cut before first flowering and then at 4 week intervals

Performance Expect dry matter yields range from 8–20 tonnes per hectare per year with crude protein from 7–16%. Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#pasture

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#conservation

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#photosensitization

36


Signal grass (Brachiaria decumbens) for livestock feed on small-scale farms

Objective To provide high quality forage for livestock feed in the humid tropics and warmer subtropics Description

Low-growing perennial grass with trailing stolons


Very palatable and good resistance to grazing and cutting

Facilitates water infiltration and prevents erosion

Very responsive to good soil fertility and tolerant of low soil fertility

Good drought tolerance and can withstand dry seasons up to 4-5months

Use as permanent pasture for grazing and cutting for fresh feed and for hay

Limits of use

Will not tolerate frost, waterlogging or flooding

Some shade tolerance but shading reduces tolerance to heavy grazing

Susceptible to spittle bug

Management Field preparation – will establish in poorly prepared soil but well-prepared seed-bed is preferable Establishment – broadcast at 2–4 kg/ha, lightly cover and compact. It can be propagated vegetatively by root splits Fertilizer – DAP at 100kg per hectare during establishment and nitrogen at 100kg per hectare after every cut. Very responsive to Nitrogen Weeding – weed twice after planting at monthly intervals during establishment. Once established it can suppress weeds effectively Harvesting – should be cut before first flowering and then at 4-6 week intervals. Very frequent cutting results in prostrate leaf growth which is difficult to harvest

Performance Expect dry matter yields of around 10 tonnes per hectare per year with up to 30 tonnes per hectare per year under high soil fertility. Crude Protein content ranges from 9–20% and rapidly declines with age of plant. Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#perennial


http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#conservation

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#prostrate

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#CP

37


Para grass (Brachiaria mutica) for livestock feed on small-scale farms

Objective To provide high quality forage for livestock feed in the tropics and warmer subtropics

Description

A creeping perennial usually up to 1m high which spreads rapidly from stolons

Very tolerant of waterlogged conditions

Grows in partial shade but prefers full sunlight

Very palatable young stems and leaves


Use for grazing or as cut and carry fresh feed

Limits of use

Very sensitive to frost

Poor drought tolerance

Potential weed if ungrazed.

Management Field preparation – well-prepared seed-bed for sowing and an initial ploughing for stem cuttings Establishment – broadcast seeds at 3–4 kg/ha, lightly covered and compacted but more commonly planted from stem cuttings disc-harrowed into soil Fertilizer – DAP at 100kg per hectare during establishment and nitrogen at 100kg per hectare after every cut. Very responsive to Nitrogen under moist growing conditions Weeding – weed twice after planting at monthly intervals during establishment. Once established it can suppress weeds effectively Harvesting – should be cut before first flowering and not grazed until the grass is more than 20cm high and well-established and 4-6 week intervals after

Performance Expect dry matter yields of 5–12 tonnes per hectare per year and crude protein contents from 14–20%. Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#drought tolerance

38


Ruzi grass (Brachiaria ruziziensis) for livestock feed on small-scale farms

Objective To provide high quality forage for livestock feed in the humid and sub-humid tropics Description

A spreading perennial similar in habit to Para grass up to 1.5m tall when flowering

Very palatable and withstands moderately heavy grazing

Can tolerate dry seasons of up to 4 months

Rapid establishment from seed or cuttings

Use as permanent or semi-permanent pasture for grazing, cut and carry green feed or hay

Limits of use

Needs well drained fertile soils and not tolerant of very acid soils

Not tolerant to frost

Very susceptible to spittlebug

Management Field preparation – well prepared seed bed is recommended Establishment – broadcast seed at 2.5–10 kg/ha or sow in rows 60cm apart no deeper than 2cm, lightly cover and compact. It can also be propagated vegetatively by root splits or stem cuttings Fertilizer – DAP at 100kg per hectare during establishment and nitrogen at 100kg per hectare after every cut. Needs high phosphorus in the early growth on a wide range of soils Weeding – weed twice after planting at monthly intervals during establishment. Once established it can spread and suppress weeds Harvesting – should be cut before first flowering and then at 6 week intervals

Performance Expect dry matter yield around 20 tonnes per hectare dry matter and 7-13% crude protein Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners


39


Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) for livestock feed on small-scale farms

Objective To provide high quality forage for livestock feed in the semi-arid and sub-humid tropics

Limits of use

Not adapted to acid infertile soils

Poor shade tolerance

High levels of soil fertility needed

Management Field preparation- well prepared and ploughed field Establishment- can be propagated vegetatively or from seeds surface sown no deeper than 2cm at a seed rate 1 to 4kg per hectare then rolled Fertilizer- DAP at 100kg per hectare during establishment and nitrogen at 100kg per hectare after every cut Weeding- weed twice after planting at monthly intervals during establishment Harvesting- cut latest at flowering about 6 months after planting and then every 2 months to maintain quality Performance Expect from 10 to 25 tonnes per hectare dry matter. Crude protein is about13% in young grass. Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners

Description

Fast growing deep rooted perennial grass that makes excellent hay

Good drought and salinity tolerance

Tolerates seasonal waterlogging

Wide adaptability and some cold tolerance

Tolerant of cutting and heavy grazing

Very palatable and good nutritive value

40


Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) for livestock feed on small-scale farms Objective To provide high quality forage for livestock feed in the wet tropics and subtropics

Limits of use

Not adapted to areas with waterlogging

Not adapted to heavy frosts

Requires fertile soil or fertiliser application

Intolerant of heavy grazing or severe defoliation

Management Field preparation − well prepared seed bed is generally required Establishment − broadcast seed, ahead of the expected rainy season, at a rate of 3 to 6kg per hectare and cover lightly. For soil erosion control it can be established from root splits, planted every 0.5 to 0.6m in rows from 1.25 to1.5m apart on contours Fertilizer − DAP at 100kg per hectare during establishment and nitrogen at 100kg per hectare after every cut or manure Weeding − weed twice after planting at monthly intervals during establishment Harvesting − needs to become well-established before grazing. It should not be grazed or cut below about 30cm to ensure persistence Performance

Expect around 14 tonnes per hectare dry matter, depending on variety and growing conditions. Crude protein ranges from 6-25% depending on age and nitrogen supply. Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners

Description

A tall tufted perennial with a deep, dense and fibrous root system

Wide adaptation from sea level to 2500m altitude in the tropics

Adapted to high rainfall areas but some tolerance to drought

Tolerant to acid soils

Suited to grazing and cutting

Very palatable and high quality feed

Good for erosion control

41


Napier or elephant grass ILRI 14984 (Pennisetum purpureum) for livestock feed on small-scale farms

Objective To provide high quality cut and carry feed for livestock in the sub-humid middle altitudes.

Description

Very tall perennial grass which tends to become coarse as it matures

Vigorous deep rooted grass which tolerates limited dry spells

Tolerates poor drainage

Good for soil stability and as a wind break

Fast growing and good palatability in early growth stage if cut often

Useful for cut and carry, hay or silage

Limits of use Not adapted to areas with frost

Not suited to waterlogged areas

Will not persist without fertiliser

Coarse, fibrous and sharp leaves if not cut frequently

Management Field preparation – ploughed field but can be used for zero tillage Establishment – stem cuttings of 2 to 3 nodes planted at 50cm spacing Fertiliser – urea at 100kg per hectare or manure after each cut Weeding – after establishment and every cut Harvesting – cut at 5cm 3 times per year, or every 3 months if good growth

Performance Expect about 40 tonnes per hectare fresh forage for cut and carry. Protein content of the forage is about 9%.

Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners

42


Setaria grass (Setaria sphacelata) for livestock feed on small-scale farms

Objective: - To provide high quality forage for livestock feed in the humid lowland and highland tropics

Limits of use

Not well adapted to alkaline or very acid soil

Not very drought tolerant

Should not be fed young and as sole feed due to presence of oxalates Management Field preparation- well prepared seed bed preferred Establishment- broadcast seeds at 2-5kg per hectare at a depth no deeper than 2cm and cover lightly. Can also be planted from root splits Fertilizer- 100kg per hectare DAP or urea required during establishment and nitrogen at 100kg per hectare after every cut Weeding- slow early growth so weed twice after planting at monthly intervals. Frequent weeding is necessary until well established Harvesting- cut latest at flowering and then every three weeks at a height of 15cm to maintain quality Performance Expect about 10-15 tonnes per hectare dry matter per year and 6-15%% crude protein. Information leaflet on livestock feeds and feeding technologies for small-scale farmers developed through collaboration between ILRI and its partners

Description Tufted perennial grass up to 2m tallAdapted to a wide

range of soils but does not grow well on very acid soils Tolerant of flooding and waterlogging

Some ecotypes are cold or frost tolerant

Palatable when young but quality quickly declines wtih maturity

Use for permanent pasture for grazing, cut and carry or silage

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#drought

http://www.tropicalforages.info/key/Forages/Media/Html/glossary.htm#waterlogging

43


Appendix 4

44


Appendix 5

Ada’a Liben Farmer Interview Questions

1. What is the number of adults in your household?

2. How much land do you own, and what do you use it for?

Crops

Grazing

House/Yard

3. Do you own any of the following animals?

If so how many?

Local Cattle

Local Oxen

Crossbred Cattle

Sheep

Goats

Donkeys

4. What is the primary feed for your animals?

Crop Residues

Stubble Grazing

Natural Pasture/Roadside

Household Waste

Concentrate for Dairy Animals

5. Do you have any feed shortages?

If so, when?

6. Do you grow any forages on your farm?

If not, would you?

7. Where do/would you grow forages?

8. What do you look for in forages?

Yield

Good Early Establishment

Ease of Producing Plant Material

Persistance

Ease of Propagation

High Feed Value/Palatability

Planting Method-Seed vs. Cutting

Number of Times to Cut per Year

Regrowth

9. Do you work with the local extension center?

If so, is it helpful and how often do they visit/ you go to them?

10. Have you ever visited the FTC (Farmer Training Centre)?

Why?

11. Additional comments-

45


Land Usage Animals

Number Name M/F # Ha. Of Crops

Gra

zing

Yar

d m2

L o c a l C a t t l eOxen

X - B r e d C a t t l eSheep

Donkey

s

1 Urgactha Bedada M 4 3 2 1 1,000 1 5 1 0 4

2 Tehai Telahun F 2 2.25 2 0.25 2,000 1 4 1 6 3

3 Frehiwot Gezahegn F 3 1.5 1.5 0 1,000 0 2 4 0 0

4 Wegayehu Negash F 2 1.75 1.5 0.25 500 0 2 4 0 1

5 Kflu Truneh M 3 2 1.75 0.25 2,000 0 2 2 0 1

6 Mulatua Negash F 3 1 1 0 500 0 3 2 8 2

7 Wana Abaguch M 4 2.5 2.2 0.3 8,000 0 4 8 0 1

8 Regassa Dadi M 1 0.75 0.75 0 500 0 3 2 0 2

ExtensionCurrent Feed

Feed

Shor

tage

s

Con

centrate

Hse

hld

Was

te

Nat.Pas

ture

Stub

ble

Grazing

Cro

p

Res

idue

s

Number Purp

ose

Forage

s

Gro

wn

Whe

re

Gro

wn

Use

ful

How

Often

/

Whe

re

Visit FT

C

1 1 2 3 If any X-bred Only None Napier Backyard Y Goes there Crop Advice

2 1 2 3 If any X-bred Only Rainy Season Oats, Vetch, Napier Plot in Backyard Y Often come and give adviceNo

3 1 Oxen Straw 2 Must buy throughout the yearOats Plot N Not in contact

4 1 Oxen X-bred Only Must buy throughout the yearOats, Vetch, Napier Around crops, and backyardY Seldom t/o year

Yes, husband got

training

Oats seed and

how to grow

forages

5 1 3 Sometimes 2 Rainy Season Oats Cropland N Not as active

6 1 Oxen 0 3 X-bred Only Must buy throughout the yearNapier Backyard N

7 1 Oxen 2 If any X-bred Only Must buy throughout the year

Oats, Vetch, Napier,

Lablab, Fodder trees Plot and field Y 3-4 times per year

They come, wife

got training Dairy

8 1 2 (off crops) 3 X-bred Only Must buy throughout the yearNone Backyard Y Every month Got training Compost

All claimed they will begin to grow the forages we gave them, and some already have.

Feed

Shor

tage

s

Con

centrate

Hse

hld

Was

te

Nat.Pas

ture

Stub

ble

Grazing

Cro

p

Res

idue

s

Number Purp

ose

Forage

s

Gro

wn

Whe

re

Gro

wn

Use

ful

How

Often

/

Whe

re

Visit FT

C

Appendix 6

46


Additional Comments:

1 Oats produce a lot, Vetch has too much persistence, and because it cannot produce seeds, it springs up volunteer and can't use land for other purposes, likes Lablab and Napier

2 Likes advice and discussion, it's good to share ideas

3 Advice is important

4 Contact is good, appreciates seed

5 ILRI gave him a heifer, shortly after it died

6 Divorce caused no more forages to be grown, now she's getting established with more X-bred cattle, one's getting old so she'll buy another

7 Shortage of land creates a shortage of feed, he had more cattle but has decreased because feed prices have risen, but milk prices have not, he's concerned with his production and how long he can continue with dairy

8 Keep contact and discussion, happy with what ILRI has started, drought caused a loss of forages (and divorce) it would be good to come back, discuss, and continue

1 1 2 0 3

2 1 2

3 1

4 1

5 1

6 1

7 1 X X X

8 1 2 2

Cuttings

per year RegrowthNumber Yield

Good Early

Est.

Ease of

Productn Persistance

Ease of

Propgtn

High Feed

Value Palatability

Planting

Method

47


Total Number Male vs. Female Male Female

Number of Adults per Household 3 2.5

Hectares of Land (Including House) 6.9 3.15

Hectares of Land Rented 2.5 4

Heactares of Land for Grazing 1.28 0.25

Local Cattle 1 1

Oxen 14 11

X-Bred Cattle 12 11

Sheep 14 0

Donkeys 8 6

Feeding Shortages 3 4

Grow Napier Currently 2 3

Grow Oats Currently 2 3

Grow Vetch Currently 1 2

Grow Lablab Currently 1 2

Useful Extension 3 2

Visit FTC 3 1

Appendix 7

is there an alternative to napier grass? matching genetic ... · pdf fileis there an...

Documents